As some of you are aware, I was behind the major rewrite of p6-caching
in the -06 revision. At that time, my intent was to help out the
editors with a one-time contribution, which I'd hand over to them and
then step away from.
Since then it's become apparent that the rewrite still needs work
(e.g., <http://www.w3.org/mid/19AC8559-09F9-44AE-90C5-5BA95ECCC3AA@mnot.net
>). After discussing this with the editors and our AD, I think the
best thing to do moving forward is for me to become an editor on that
document, so that I can continue to make editorial contributions and
tweaks.
However, this would necessitate some changes to avoid conflict of
interest (apparent or real). One of the roles a WG chair performs is
to "shepherd" the documents through the IESG process once they enter
Last Call (RFC4858), and part of the shepherding process is pointing
out places where there was contention in the WG or disagreement with
the state of the document.
Since an editor has so much control over what goes into the document,
it would be inappropriate for me to both edit and shepherd that
document. To avoid this, Mark Baker has volunteered to shepherd that
document, once it enters Last Call.
To be clear -- this would only apply to p6-caching, and I would still
determine consensus for that document during the WG process. I very
much intend to wear the different hats separately and prominently, and
would rely on WG members to remind me of this should any apparent
conflict surface.
Absent any serious concerns expressed by the community, we'll
implement this for draft -07, which I expect to be out before
Stockholm. If we go ahead and concerns do sprout up down the road,
I'll be quite willing to step away from the document again to allow us
to move forward.
Kind regards and many thanks to Mark for allowing himself to be
volunteered,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/